The Dark Enlightenment and Neoreactionary Primer… One of the signs of conservative torpor is its descent into silliness:  Fox News culture warring, the unconventional conservatism of comic books, status-jockeying pundits in favor of gay marriage and low taxes, the hipster conservatism of Rod Dreher, paranoid delusions about Obama, etc.  In a world where conservativism is defined entirely by distractions and larping, conservatism doesn't really exist.  This is that world.


Conservatism's silliness suits the media just fine.  It's commerce now, run by very large corporations, and the last thing they want to do is make people concerned and anxious right before the ads.  You may have noticed the mood--the "will this make my tummy hurt?" mood.


So instead of serious treatment of the economy, geopolitics, demographic change, and other things that might make you feel insecure and that definitely won't lead to change they can cash in on, we get the Decade of the Shark.  Did someone famous just express an opinion about gay people?  Turn on Diane Sawyer's World News and Funniest Home Videos to find out!


Thus the trickle of reports you may have seen about "neoreactionaries" or "The Dark Enlightenment".  Take this one from The Telegraph:


Meet The Dark Enlightenment: sophisticated neo-fascism that's spreading fast on the net


Since 2012 a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called "The Dark Enlightenment". Its modus operandi is well suited to a digital society. Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism.


Bizarre, neo-fascist, futuristic weirdos--when you don't have time to talk about the troubling breakdown in social structures, you will tend to find time to talk about this kind of crap.


Neoreactionaries are young nerdy fellows who go up into the attic and larp about in grandpa's clothes.  They read Carlyle and Evola and Nietzsche and talk about antiegalitarianism and transhumanism and "human biodiversity" (racism).  As with grandpa's clothes, it's all a poor fit for them because they haven't done the hard work of understanding the context of their own complaints.  Rather, they consume outdated philosophy along with their own cudlike blogs and tweets until what they are eating is indistinguishable from what they are excreting.  This is basically how all Internet cultures operate, but moreso for neoreactionaries because when you start name-dropping guys like Evola the crowd really thins out (justifiably).


Why are they into all this esoterica?  The modern world scares and disturbs them, they don't understand it at all, and they have what you could call a lot of "indoor time".  Their neoreactionaryism is a soothing defensive posture, functioning much as a hugbox does for autists--they shut out the difficult chaos of argument and bickering of politics and shut themselves in with the firm authority of misfit philosophers who write in a clear, elegant manner.


I've already told you more of substance about them than you'll get from the media, which treats them as a new exotic flavor of Internet sperg.  For the media, it's just something to read about while you're waiting for everyone to get back from lunch.  Neoreactionaries think this is their breakout moment, but it's really just the moment when everyone agrees what to label this strange group of nerds.  It's all for that moment of recognition when you can say, "Ah!  You read Ayn Rand."


So what difference does it make?  Look around the circus:  this is what happens when conservatism is so debilitated and fraudulent.  That is what is important here--not the clowns.


More, so much more, at My Posting CareerMonday, January 20, 2014 - 4:46 PM  


The Future of Racism… For a long time now I've wanted to write about two related subjects:  the failure of HBD/race-realism as an intellectual movement, and the function of race and racism in human society.


Now I've written it.  This is something I hope everyone in the conservative-race-realist-HBD-alt right "sphere" reads and seriously considers, so I'd like those who find it interesting to help spread it.


I will introduce it by presenting the conclusion:


The correct view of race is as a spectrum of human differences created by selection pressures and inbreeding.  Race therefore isn't a constant, but it has a certain staying power in that it takes many generations of population change to alter racial characteristics.


Culture echoes race, gifting it with a kind of personality which equates to a stereotype ("averaging" the behavior of a group).  This use of race as group stereotype is very close to the traditional meaning of the word race, as in "the Scotch-Irish race", "the Slavic race", and so on, in which the word race captures both inbreeding and cultural expression--appearance, manners, temperament, proclivity.


While stereotypes are invariably seen as negative simplifications, the truth is stereotypes are an indispensible part of our thinking, and we hold stereotypes about ourselves as much as about others, both as individuals--being part of a stereotype--and as groups.  The negative connotation of stereotyping developed in reaction to group conflict, but stereotypes are often positive.  Stereotypes about ourselves and others help us to bond together in groups; the stronger the bond the less costly group formation is (fewer mechanisms are needed to maintain cooperation and suppress cheating).


Nature helps us cooperate by giving us kin preference (in which physical similarity is consequential), without which we would be at best opportunistic foragers hanging together in small, easily dispersed groups.  Kin preference combines with stereotyping to allow us to form strong, secure communities and nations.


But groups do not all appear to have the same capacity for organizational complexity.  It can be argued whether this is genetic or cultural (i.e. "legacy of the past") or both--but since it doesn't appear feasible to deliberately shape culture, it's an argument that is beside the point.  To the extent that a group has a higher capacity than it appears to have, it's not clear why this should not be observed within a few generations of contact.


When groups with different capacities for organizational complexity share a space, the result is usually that the higher complexity group becomes dominant over the lower complexity group.  This relationship can change, and even reverse, assuming the lower complexity group has the capacity to achieve a higher level of complexity, but this is not always the case.  IQ, and possibly other cognitive/emotional factors, appear to place a limit on organizational complexity.  This is discussed further in The Limits of Human Scale.


With the advent of harm-based morality, the mechanics of group solidarity came under attack due to an obsession with dominant vs. subordinate group interaction.  This moralizing targeted dominant group solidarity specifically, because of its tendency to harm the subordinate group (harm should be seen in the context of all group interaction, but this tends not to be the case).  Weakened group solidarity, in combination with the formation of mass society, has dramatically increased the costs of organizational complexity, and calls into question our ability to sustain society in present form.


The evidence is all around us:  greater surveillance, erosion of fourth amendement protections, historically high levels of criminal incarceration, decline in social relationships and levels of trust, militarization of police, criminalization of speech, etc.  These are the costs we have been burdened with as group solidarity has come under attack.


This is the result of the war on racism.  Like many famous "wars" on abstract concepts, it has mainly produced more of what it is attempting to eliminate.  This is not to deny that real social problems provided its impetus--rather that the war is an ineffective remedy for a misdiagnosed problem.  The true remedy lies in recognition of how group cohesion develops, what its needs are, and its very large role in reducing the costs of organizational complexity.


More at My Posting CareerFriday, July 19, 2013 - 11:21 AM  


The Essence of Intimacy… Steve Sailer sometimes writes about the Undernews, which I guess you learn about by fucking around on Google all day.  But I do not recall him writing much about "darky enlightenment", which is that feel when you read what black people talk about to each other, such as in black-targeted magazines, radio programs, and barbershops that sell crack.  I'm not much one for flipping through copies of Ebony or Essence at a magazine stand, in fact I still have strong suspicions that these publications are part of a Skull and Bones prank on the rest of the country.  Sniggering rich preppies methodically constructing in mind-blowing detail the childish preoccupations and low rent celebrity tabloidism that black people would indulge in if they could read (you know they got a huge laugh out of Michelle Obama's thesis).
Be that as it may (as a black person might say in a comic attempt to sound smart), darky enlightment is a fun exercise because it is filled with "am I dreaming this?" moments.  First of all it is hard to conceptualize what people who are 30-45 points down on the IQ scale think about, but it is even harder to imagine what an entire group of them might think about while being forced to live in a world in which nearly everyone else is smarter than them.  But you can kind of see how it would make people more defensive.


More at My Posting CareerWednesday, July 3, 2013 - 3:06 PM  

rss feed atom feed